Escala de Valor de la Institución Educativa sobre la Comunidad Campesina

In Nigeria, corruption is at a high level. It is prevalent in its various forms. It appears to be the order of the day. But this does not mean that it has been accepted as normal in the country. In fact, it has always been an offence. For instance, sections 98 and 104 of the Criminal Code applicable to the Southern States and sections 115 and 116 of the Penal Code applicable to Northern States have respectively criminalised it. Again, the 1999 Constitution makes it a fundamental objective and directive principle of state policy for the state to abolish all corrupt practices and abuse of power (s.15). More anti-corruption laws have been enacted recently. They are the Corrupt Practices (and Other Related Offences) Act, 2000; the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Act 2004; and Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2004. Nigeria is also a

signatory to, and has ratified the United Nations Convention Against Corruption, 2003.1

Though corruption has existed in Nigeria for long, I shall look at its level as assessed by Transparency International (TI) between 1996 and 2008.2 The assessments indicate that Nigeria is perceived to be among the most corrupt nations in the world. In both 1996 (the first time Nigeria was included in the TI assessment) and 1997, its level of corruption was the highest in the world. It again recorded this unenviable position of the nation perceived to be the most corrupt in 2000. For five (5) times within the period, it was the second nation with the highest level of corruption in the world. It took a 3rd position (sharing the position with Cote D’Ivoire and Equatorial Guinea) and 4thposition (sharing the position with Tanzania) once each. Sharing with 8 other countries, it occupied the 5th position once. Its position in 2007 was 9th which it shared with Angola and Guinea-Bissau. Its last and so far best position is the 16thout of 180 in 2008. Table 4.1 below gives details of Nigeria’s TI Corruption Perception Index (CPI) between 1996 and 2008.

1_{Doc. A/58/422 adopted by the UN General Assembly on 31/10/2003. Nigeria signed it on}

9/12/2003 and ratified it on 14/12/2004. See

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/signatories.html

2

Transparency International is an anti-corruption non-governmental organisation established in 1993. It is based in Berlin, Germany and has offices across the world. Through its annual Corruption Perception Index (CPI) which it started in 1995, it assesses the level of official corruption in individual countries as perceived by international businessmen, financial journalists and the general public. Countries are scored between 0 and 10. 0 represents entirely corrupt while 10 means corrupt-free. Its work is a “poll of polls” because it uses existing surveys conducted by various organisations giving the extent of variation amongst them. Minimum number of surveys used for a country ranged from 2 to 4 and maximum ranged from 7 to 10. A high variance number indicates a high degree of disagreement among the surveys while a low number shows a high concordance. Nigeria was first assessed in 1996.

Table 4.1: Nigeria’s TI CPI (1996-2008)3

Year Rank Total Score Surveys Variance

1996 54 54 0.69 4 6.37 1997 52 52 1.76 4 0.16 1998 81 85 1.9 5 0.5 1999 98 99 1.6 5 0.8 2000 90 90 1.2 4 0.6 2001 90 91 1.0 4 0.9 2002 101 102 1.6 6 0.6 2003 132 133 1.4 9 0.4 2004 144 145 1.6 9 - 2005 152 158 1.9 9 - 2006 142 163 2.2 7 - 2007 147 179 2.2 8 - 2008 121 180 2.7 7 0.5

Source: Compiled from TI Corruption Perception Indices 1996-2008

Nigeria’s improvement in position reflects its improvement in score. But that is not to suggest that it is purely commensurate to the level of combating corruption. The inclusion of more nations (among which might be war-torn countries like Angola, Afghanistan and Somalia) in the assessment would improve Nigeria’s position without a significant improvement in its score. For instance, between its 1st position in 2000 (one of the worst positions) and its 9th position in 2007 (its best position until 2008) is a difference of only one (1) point. But while there were ninety (90) countries involved in the 2000 assessment, countries assessed in 2007 were one hundred and seventy nine (179).

Nigeria’s high level of corruption as reflected in the CPI is fortified by the fact that the surveys used by TI for its assessment in each year were multiple. Except in four occasions, they exceeded four (4) in all other assessments. In some instances it was as high as nine (9). And except in 1996 when the degree of variance among the surveys was as high as 6.37, in all other years the number was below 1.0. This clearly shows that various surveying organisations are in agreement several times that Nigeria’s level of corruption is one of the highest

3_{The first column indicates the year of the report. The data used by TI is normally for few}

previous years. The second column indicates the corruption ranking of Nigeria among other countries. The third column indicates the total number of countries assessed in a particular year. The fourth column is Nigeria’s score out of a maximum of 10. The fifth column is for the number of survey used by TI as working data. The final column reflects the degree of variance of opinion among the surveys used. The higher the number, the more the disagreement, the lower the number, the more the agreement among the surveys on the countries level of corruption. Variance figures from 2004 to 2007 are unavailable.

in the world. Comparing Nigeria’s scores for 1996 and 1997, TI (1997) declares as follows:

Comparing the scores for 1996 and 1997 it may … appear that the perceived level of corruption is strongly decreasing. It should be noted however, that the 1997 is much more precise with a variance of only 0.16 points. This means that there is even a stronger agreement that Nigeria scores lowest among the 52 countries ranked.

Nigeria is the only oil-producing country where the level of corruption is so high. Assessment for the Middle East oil-producing countries did not start until 2003 except for Jordan which was first included in 1998. The evidence shows that their level of corruption is low. For instance, United Arab Emirate’s score has been 6.0 on the average; Qatar 5.9 (6.5 in 2008); Kuwait 4.8; Jordan 5.0. The only countries which came close to Nigeria are Indonesia and Venezuela. Venezuela’s least score was 1.9 in 2008 while its highest score was 2.8 in 2001. Indonesia’s least score was 1.7 in 1999 and 2000 respectively and its highest score was 2.72 in 1997. Even when it became the nation perceived to be the most corrupt in the world in 1995, its score was 1.94, a score which Nigeria only reached in 2006, 2007 and 2008.

The level of corruption in less-endowed countries like Malaysia, Botswana and Ghana is far better than Nigeria’s. Botswana and Ghana are not only less- endowed but are sister African countries. Perhaps this explains why these countries have been able to achieve Medium Human Development Index (the Middle Eastern countries achieved High Human Development Index) as assessed by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).4Table 4.2 below gives details of the scores of the 5 last mentioned countries.

Table 4.2: TI CPI for Selected Countries (1995-2008)5

Year Botswana Malaysia Ghana Venezuela Indonesia

1995 - 5.28 - 2.66 1.94 1996 - 5.32 - 2.50 2.65 1997 - 5.01 - 2.77 2.72 1998 6.1 5.3 3.3 2.3 2.0 1999 6.1 5.1 3.3 2.6 1.7 2000 6.0 4.8 3.5 2.7 1.7 2001 6.0 5.0 3.4 2.8 1.9 2002 6.4 4.9 3.9 2.5 1.9 2003 5.7 5.2 3.3 2.4 1.9 2004 6.0 5.0 3.6 2.3 2.0 2005 5.9 5.1 3.5 2.3 2.2 2006 5.6 5.0 3.3 2.3 2.4 2007 5.4 5.1 3.7 2.0 2.3 2008 5.8 5.1 3.9 1.9 2.6

Source: Compiled from TI CPI 1995-2008

Undoubtedly, Nigeria has, on a number of occasions, been perceived as either the most or one of the most corrupt nations in the world; a country of great opportunities but held down by corrupt practices. Perhaps in defence, it may be argued that by the TI assessment, Nigeria is merelyperceivedto be very corrupt and not actually so. Moreover, the assessment is carried out by a foreign organisation relying on surveys made by equally foreign organisations. However, such arguments collapse when viewed against the fact that Nigerians too share this perception. All military coups have been explained in terms of corruption of the previous governments. The poverty-stricken followership has generally been cynical about the normally-affluent leadership. There cannot be a better confession to corruption than what former President Obasanjo once said:

There was corruption! corruption! and corruption! everywhere and all the time! Corruption was not only rife, it had eaten so deeply into the marrow of our existence that looters and fraudsters had become our heroes, and it seemed we could no longer place any faith in honesty and decency and hard work (Inaugural Speech 1999).

Recent Development Plans have also recognised how deep corruption has eaten into the Nigerian polity. For instance, Vision 2010 laments that “corruption appears to have become a way of doing things, though it is resented by a

5

Data on Botswana and Ghana for the period 1995-1997 are unavailable because they started to be included in the TI assessment from 1998.

significant number of people who are hopeless in the face of weak and selective application of sanctions” (1997: 9). Similarly, NEEDS states as follows:

Nigeria’s legacy of mismanagement and corrupt governance has encouraged many people to seek ways of sharing the national cake instead of helping bake it. By 1999 corruption was practically institutionalized. Government was widely regarded as provider of large contracts, distributed by officers in power to people wealthy enough to buy their influence. This was particularly so in the oil industry. Over time, the judiciary became intimidated, as the rich and powerful manipulated laws and regulations to their advantage (NEEDS 2003: xiv).

What else could be said? Just in case the ‘confession’ leaves one still unsatisfied, a look at the numerous cases of corruption which cut across the various regimes (military or civilian) which ruled since independence would make Nigeria’s TI CPI position hardly deniable. Some of these cases have been duly and formally established; some remain unproven allegations; while a large number might be hidden. Exposing some of these cases indicates that despite the pervasiveness of corruption, there does appear some resistance to it. But as appears from what follows these cases, the absence of rule of law in practice leaves room for continuation of corrupt practices undermining development in the country. It is to some of these cases that we shall now turn.